Soldiers sue over out-of-pocket costs

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 1 February 2006 | Sara Miller Llana

[Racehorse]

Massachusetts National Guard soldiers are taking the question straight to the top. They have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they are owed $73 million in food, lodging, and commuting expenses they paid out-of-pocket while activated under state orders to protect sites such as military bases and reservoirs from terrorist attacks.

The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court against the Massachusetts National Guard and the US Department of Defense, is believed to be the first of its kind nationally, and raises new questions about what the government owes its men and women in uniform.

[. . .]

. . . the plaintiffs say they worked side by side with other units who did receive per diem because they were called up under Title 10, which means they were federalized. Those activated under state command, or Title 32, did not receive such entitlements. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that up to 1,200 soldiers may not have received reimbursements.

[Racehorse]

Not clear to me into which status the Guardsmen were called to active duty. State active duty, Title 32 active duty and Title 10 active duty are three different modes of service.

If they were really called to State service under state military law, doubtful they will collect money.

If Title 32, they may well have grounds. My experience is far from current, but all the Title 32 programs I was once familiar with were underwritten by federal (National Guard Bureau) funds.

[satchmodog9]

interesting.

[pepsionice]

When you deploy...there are two windows of opportunity...either you are authorized payment for hotels and per diem...or you are in tent city, with bunk and meals provided. Thats the only two choices. After reading this entire story...and the fact they were hours away from their normal site...the court is likely to rule that someone in the state government really screwed up and I think they will get paid...although not as much as they think. In the old days...every town had a armory and bunks...and you could bring 200 guys over for some emergency...bunking them for free...and just pay $12-20 a day for food. Most armories have been closed down across the US in the past 30 years.

[FarmerW]

One thing I have never understood when I hear talk of soldiers having to buy their own equipment is no one mentions that officers always purchase their own uniforms.

I am not saying that this instance they shouldn't be paid or that soldiers shouldn't be reimbursed for armour. Just odd to me that it is never mentioned.

[No Longer Free State]

I don't understand why they're suing the DoD if they were under state orders.

[Racehorse]

That is what has me puzzled, as well.

In Texas, state duty for a Guardsman pays next to nothing and provides no federal benefits. The state bears the financial burden.

Wish there were more details.

But, if they were somehow called up under Title 32, there should have been federal funds available to cover costs of food, lodging, etc.

[Alas Babylon!]

Officers are paid a lot more on active duty and if they can endure a career of the military, the retirement pay will be worth hundreds of thousands dollars more.